Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[woo me with science]

1. The programs should be ended because they are unconstitutional.

We should not need legislation to outlaw spying. That implies that the spying was acceptable in the first place and requires special laws to make it illegal.

The Fourth Amendment (and the First, too...) should be all we need here.

I wish this would happen through the courts...but they are purchased, too.

[unblock]

5. not if you ask the crazy courts these days. they believe in the "third party" "principle"

the "third party principle" says that once you convey private information to someone else, it's not longer private information, so the nsa can gobble it up. this is the contorted logic by which they say accumulating metadata on everyone is fine.

you communicated your call information and such to your phone carrier in order to place and receive those calls, so therefore it's not private information. this is a staggeringly narrow definition of private information. basically, what you do when you're all alone and damn sure no one is looking or can ever find out, that's private, and absolutely nothing else is.

that's the so-called principle by which today's courts determine the constitutionality of things like the nsa data hoovering.

mostly, even, it's the so-called self-proclaimed originalists who think this, because, yeah, right, our founders put the bill of rights because they were totally fine with the government monitoring all communications.

if x writes a letter to y and delivers it in person, then it's private information.
but if x writes a letter to y and asks z to do him a favor and deliver it for him, then it's public information, even if z is a private individual.

crazy

[woo me with science]

7. The courts are corrupted then. Yes, it's crazy.

The Fourth Amendment is clear in its intent, and this mass collection and storage of data are a gross violation of both its spirit and letter.

I just hate that nobody seems to be fighting on this basis. Nobody is fighting for our Constitution.

Trying to fix this through legislation is very dangerous, because I think what we will end up with is some sort of compromise. We should not be compromising on Constitutional protections, period.

It will be a ploy of corporate politicians less honest than Elizabeth Warren to try to dupe and pacify the public (pretending to fix everything and "rein in" the NSA) by using legislation to rule out only certain limited types of spying, thereby establishing through precedent that the vast mass of spying not prohibited by their laws is okay. It's not. It's unconstitutional.

I am very worried about where this is heading.

[Th1onein]

2. This is the first I've heard of "reverse targeting. They just get dirtier and dirtier, don't they?

[woo me with science]

3. Filthy.

Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2013, 09:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Filthy and corrupt.

This is the behavior of a corporate fascist state, not a democratic representative government with our Bill of Rights.

[fascisthunter]

10. Yeah, it's getting ugly

[WillyT]

4. K & R !!!

[riderinthestorm]

6. Big K&R! nt

[rhett o rick]

8. I wonder where Ms. Clinton stands on this issue. nm

[JDPriestly]

12. We need to ask her.

[rhett o rick]

13. Wont do any good. She is going to be pretty quiet for a while. She has the incumbent advantage. nm

[pacalo]

9. I like your subject line...

but your link goes to Sensenbrenner's House page. Weird.

[JDPriestly]

11. Elizabeth Warren is a lawyer.

She knows how easy it is to get a subpoena if you need it. She knows how much information, really intrusive information can be learned from a little data, much less metadata.

She knows this metadata collection is dangerous to our democracy.

So do I. So do a lot of DUers. I stand with Elizabeth Warren in opposing the collection of metadata by our government (or by private companies or individuals). The amount of data that credit check companies are permitted to collect should be very limited even.

[rhett o rick]

17. I agree. I stand with Sen Warren. nm

[Scuba]

18. Count me in also.

[backscatter712]

14. Even without the Constitutional arguments, there's a reason people are upset. Metadata is sensitive.

Metadata exposes a lot of information about people's private lives, that most people wouldn't want to share with three-letter agencies.

Those who don't object to metadata collection: I suppose you wouldn't mind if the government got to collect billing data from your doctors... After all, they're not privy to the actual procedures themselves, they're just getting the information that the office uses to make sure they get paid for them. Oh? Wait? You do mind? Oh, yeah, because billing data is metadata that exposes information about your medical procedures and medical conditions.

There's a reason why we have the HIPAA. Medical metadata is sensitive. So is telco metadata.

[riderinthestorm]

15. She's just a Paul lover who doesn't see the "traitor"

Who started this journey. ..

[ReRe]

16. I love Elizabeth, but we need to...

... reinstate the First and the Fourth Amendments. Toss any obstacle standing in their way.

[maddezmom]

19. Do you have a link to Sen. Warren's statement as opposed to Rep. Sensenbrenners website?

On edit found it.....
http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=356911